New Greenville developments

[vicupstate]

23 minutes ago, Den2Gvl said:

I would love to see our City Hall be redone like the BB&T building in Asheville.  I'm not a fan of the black. 

Wow. A big improvement. I never liked the black metal either. Our City Hall just needs to be replaced altogether. 

22 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Also, about 10 years ago (pre-Obama crash), wasn't there a plan to build a condo building on the site?

I don't recall one on that parcel but I might be forgetting something. If there was one proposed, it didn't get very far at all. You are probably thinking about the small parcel behind the Vardry McBee statute.  

And the crash was before Obama.  

[distortedlogic]

12 hours ago, Den2Gvl said:

I would love to see our City Hall be redone like the BB&T building in Asheville.  I'm not a fan of the black. 

I've seen this building too and this what I want developers to do to the Landmark building, it's a bigger eyesore than city all IMO.

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2018/10/19/greer-inland-port-plans-expand/1695218002/

Inland port already over capacity after just 5 years time; that thing has really taken off.  They are looking to purchase an additional 30 acres and add facilities that would allow traffic to double, which may not take that long the way this thing has been growing.

[Exile]

21 hours ago, vicupstate said:

Wow. A big improvement. I never liked the black metal either. Our City Hall just needs to be replaced altogether. 

One would think that an early '70's building of that size would have been significantly outgrown by now.

On a historical note, I have a vague recollection that the original concept for City Hall included an eventual twin tower where the Marriott now is. Or am I confusing City Hall with something else?

8 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

I've seen this building too and this what I want developers to do to the Landmark building, it's a bigger eyesore than city all IMO.

BB&T was gutted for that redo. What is Landmark's occupancy? Can you reclad a skyscraper with tenants? If that's marble cladding, I suppose that would have value and mitigate the costs of any exterior replacement.

And a question for you architecture-savvy people out there: is Landmark "brutalist"? Looks like it to me, but quick Google search didn't give me an answer.

[gman430]

City Hall isn’t going anywhere. The city has recently allocated money to fix issues with the building. 

[goodbye]

2 hours ago, Exile said:

[...]

On a historical note, I have a vague recollection that the original concept for City Hall included an eventual twin tower where the Marriott now is. Or am I confusing City Hall with something else?

[...]

And a question for you architecture-savvy people out there: is Landmark "brutalist"? Looks like it to me, but quick Google search didn't give me an answer.

Imagining a twin tower for City Hall brings to mind the James H. Floyd towers in Atlanta, which closely resemble Greenville's City Hall, albeit much taller.

A conceptual drawing of a tall, brutalist-style tower rising above the Greenville News site was recently published in an article about the history of the newspaper.  The idea was intended to create a "twin" tower for the Daniel (aka Landmark) building several blocks away on South Main Street.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Skyliner
Added link to Greenville News article mentioned in post.

[PuppiesandKittens]

I’m beyond tired of hearing about the Daniel Building generally.  It’s an ugly midsize building built 50 yeas ago.  If it’s “all that”, then it’s pathetic that nothing more noteworthy has been built since then.  

How many other cities would have so much talk about that kind of building?  Charlotte doesn’t (although the circa-1991 BofA Corporate Center gets more attention than it should), and even Columbia has built plenty of more impressive buildings in the last 30 years.

It can and should be reclad with a with a more attractive exterior.

[distortedlogic]

Agreed P&K. I am amazed Greenville has been unable to get something taller in 50+ years, though I think the opportunity has been there, it just hasn't been seized. Regardless, let's follow the lead of other cities and remake this eyesore. As for talk, I guess it gets so much discussion here because it is, in fact, our tallest, yet it's so stinking ugly. All the more reason to improve its aesthetics. 

"Butalist" is an aptly named style for that building, doesn't get much more brutal than that.

I actually wouldn't mind the city hall style, while not beautiful, it would be fine if not for the external elevator shaft- 

Edited October 20, 2018 by distortedlogic

[Exile]

I suspect that Greenville didn't really, in the mid-60's, have the market to support such a building, but for the fact that there happened to be a major construction company headquartered here. I don't know if the Daniel/BBT/Landmark Building was built as a monument to the Daniels or whether they genuinely, altruistically wanted to bring something major to an otherwise smallish downtown. But whatever the reason, it seems to me that nothing on that scale has been built since because that scale has never really been appropriate for Greenville's market. Yet, anyway. We've torn down one 17-story building,  built two others about that height; and another one is about to break ground. Otherwise it's been mostly 8-12 story buildings. I suppose one good thing is that our office market has never really gone in the tank.

The Columbia comparison doesn't work because of bureaucracy greedy for more space. When the Capitol Center went up (possibly uglier than Landmark), a relative of mine who worked for S.C. govt immediately moved in. This is common in capital cities, D.C. preeminent among them. You can't build willy-nilly, but developers can be assured that there will soon be some agency looking for more space.

I'm proud that Greenville's got the downtown it does because of entrepreneurship and livability that brings people and companies in.

[distortedlogic]

Some good points, but then on the other hand Greenville had the 17 story Woodside building (the one you referenced, 185 ft?) built back in the 20s , that was the tallest building between Atlanta and Washington. And Scott towers was 14 stories. You're right, though we don't have any headquarters that would really warrant a huge building, though Carolina First could have built DT instead of the interstate, and One could have combined 2 of their buildings, or some of these appt buildings could have built up instead of out. I dunno, if places like Knoxville, Cola, Mobile, Jackson, etc can have buildings taller and better looking there's no reason a growing place like Greenville can't.

[ausrutherford]

Greenville will grow taller with less land availability. That will happen once County Square has finished development, or perhaps during it. The demand for floor space will warrant it. 

On 10/20/2018 at 8:27 AM, gman430 said:

City Hall isn’t going anywhere. The city has recently allocated money to fix issues with the building. 

Those are just temporary fixes to extend the lifetime. Once the City finishes the park and the police/muni court, look for the Mayor to push for a new City Hall. He has wanted one for awhile. Many do. 

The City has vastly outgrown City Hall. Rec, parking services, etc are all now in other buildings around downtown. 

[Exile]

Woodside was to the 1920's what Daniel was to the 60's. What we need is a next-generation business mogul to guarantee a long-term lease for the lion's share of the space in a new tallest. We're about a decade overdue.

[sptgguy]

While I would love to see DT go up...I will take density any day of the week. I love that DT is starting to spread out and off of Main St. I want to see commercial spreading along the first floors of 3-5 story buildings all over downtown, and pocket parks, and cool art. Just my thoughts

[Exile]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:59 PM, distortedlogic said:

Some good points, but then on the other hand Greenville had the 17 story Woodside building (the one you referenced, 185 ft?) built back in the 20s , that was the tallest building between Atlanta and Washington. And Scott towers was 14 stories. You're right, though we don't have any headquarters that would really warrant a huge building, though Carolina First could have built DT instead of the interstate, and One could have combined 2 of their buildings, or some of these appt buildings could have built up instead of out. I dunno, if places like Knoxville, Cola, Mobile, Jackson, etc can have buildings taller and better looking there's no reason a growing place like Greenville can't.

I don't know. It's easy to second-guess developers. Since you bring up the One: Bob Hughes is a Greenville guy. I can't imagine that, deep down, he and others like him wouldn't love to put up a signature tower. But you have to have the leases to justify it. That's why I think Woodside in the 20's and Daniel in the 60's were likely aberrations, not really reflective of Greenville's ongoing business culture. There have been sizable companies arise here, but they seem inevitably to get bought out: Daniel, Southern Bank, Carolina First. And Carolina First did build downtown. But unless my timeline is wrong, they had already made the decision, as a Greenville-based bank, to leave downtown before they were bought. Again, who am I to second-guess them? It's their business, not mine. (But I do wish they'd stayed downtown).

As for the One, hindsight seems to support the approach, since it didn't take Certus Bank long to get exposed. If they'd built a 20+ story tower on the basis of those guarantees, we'd likely have a vacant corner that's now occupied by a nice 10-11 story building, with the benefit of added density.

As for Landmark: I agree that the building could be vastly improved in appearance, but any recladding, it seems to me, would have to be preceded by a business-failure and fire-sale of the building. How else could an owner justify what must be an enormous expense? If the building is full or at least sufficiently leased and turning a profit, what would be the owner's motivation to do such a thing? Out of pocket, to boot. Under the apparent circumstances (I don't know--for all I know Landmark is about to fail), undertaking such a project would be a bad business decision.

[vicupstate]

I think the city itself has largely promoted mid rise rather than high rise, and I think the market itself was already there.  I think you get a lot more  synergy and spin-off from 4 eight story buildings than from  one 32 story building myself.  Look how vast the walk able urban areas of DC and Charleston are, which have significant height restrictions.  

[Jet-set]

I believe Landmark is for sale. 80% occupied or thereabouts. 

[johnpro318]

1 hour ago, Exile said:

I don't know. It's easy to second-guess developers. Since you bring up the One: Bob Hughes is a Greenville guy. I can't imagine that, deep down, he and others like him wouldn't love to put up a signature tower. But you have to have the leases to justify it. That's why I think Woodside in the 20's and Daniel in the 60's were likely aberrations, not really reflective of Greenville's ongoing business culture. There have been sizable companies arise here, but they seem inevitably to get bought out: Daniel, Southern Bank, Carolina First. And Carolina First did build downtown. But unless my timeline is wrong, they had already made the decision, as a Greenville-based bank, to leave downtown before they were bought. Again, who am I to second-guess them? It's their business, not mine. (But I do wish they'd stayed downtown).

As for the One, hindsight seems to support the approach, since it didn't take Certus Bank long to get exposed. If they'd built a 20+ story tower on the basis of those guarantees, we'd likely have a vacant corner that's now occupied by a nice 10-11 story building, with the benefit of added density.

As for Landmark: I agree that the building could be vastly improved in appearance, but any recladding, it seems to me, would have to be preceded by a business-failure and fire-sale of the building. How else could an owner justify what must be an enormous expense? If the building is full or at least sufficiently leased and turning a profit, what would be the owner's motivation to do such a thing? Out of pocket, to boot. Under the apparent circumstances (I don't know--for all I know Landmark is about to fail), undertaking such a project would be a bad business decision.

 

31 minutes ago, Jet-set said:

I believe Landmark is for sale. 80% occupied or thereabouts. 

Someone would have to buy it I think with the intention of tearing down the garage and completely redoing the block. Take out the garage and build a new one to support a couple towers. Then after that I could see the developer recladding and doing a major Reno for the Landmark building. That block and the adjacent ones would be good to encourage high rises. 

[Exile]

BTW, doing some more digging into "brutalism," I'm reminded of the Denny's tower in Spartanburg. Could be worse for Greenville.

Landmark definitely looks brutalist, though it's not included on any lists I've seen. But what distinguishes it from the many examples I've seen pics of is the use of marble. Most seem to be concrete, or concrete and masonry. So maybe we can say Landmark's top-notch brutalist. That concept for a "twin tower" sitting on top of the Greenville News Building had only one virtue: it would have been taller than Landmark. Unless they were thinking marble there, too.

And don't forget that absolutely hideous Empire State Plaza in Albany, NY. Could be REALLY worse for Greenville. First time I saw those, I thought I had been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

And I love Spartanburg.

[Den2Gvl]

9 minutes ago, Exile said:

BTW, doing some more digging into "brutalism," I'm reminded of the Denny's tower in Spartanburg. Could be worse for Greenville.

Landmark definitely looks brutalist, though it's not included on any lists I've seen. But what distinguishes it from the many examples I've seen pics of is the use of marble. Most seem to be concrete, or concrete and masonry. So maybe we can say Landmark's top-notch brutalist. That concept for a "twin tower" sitting on top of the Greenville News Building had only one virtue: it would have been taller than Landmark. Unless they were thinking marble there, too.

And don't forget that absolutely hideous Empire State Plaza in Albany, NY. Could be REALLY worse for Greenville. First time I saw those, I thought I had been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

And I love Spartanburg.

Seems like the old Greenville News building could be classified as brutalist too. 

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, Exile said:

BTW, doing some more digging into "brutalism," I'm reminded of the Denny's tower in Spartanburg. Could be worse for Greenville.

Landmark definitely looks brutalist, though it's not included on any lists I've seen. But what distinguishes it from the many examples I've seen pics of is the use of marble. Most seem to be concrete, or concrete and masonry. So maybe we can say Landmark's top-notch brutalist. That concept for a "twin tower" sitting on top of the Greenville News Building had only one virtue: it would have been taller than Landmark. Unless they were thinking marble there, too.

And don't forget that absolutely hideous Empire State Plaza in Albany, NY. Could be REALLY worse for Greenville. First time I saw those, I thought I had been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

And I love Spartanburg.

I've always thought it was concrete, never heard it was marble before. It looks concrete to me at any rate. And I actually think the Dennys towers in Spartanburg looks considerably better than Landmark/ Daniel.

Got a rendering of the Gnews twin?

58 minutes ago, Den2Gvl said:

Seems like the old Greenville News building could be classified as brutalist too. 

I believe it was.

2 hours ago, johnpro318 said:

 

Someone would have to buy it I think with the intention of tearing down the garage and completely redoing the block. Take out the garage and build a new one to support a couple towers. Then after that I could see the developer recladding and doing a major Reno for the Landmark building. That block and the adjacent ones would be good to encourage high rises. 

Yeah, I think the garage would need to be redone and I'd hope the elevator shaft would be redone to be more included with the main part of the building. 

Don't forget that across the street where the 4 story hotel is was where the Bob Ellis Pinnacle on Main , 14 story condo building was supposed to be. It was a nice looking building and would have really added to the collection of height in that part of DT.

Edited October 22, 2018 by distortedlogic

[Exile]

2 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Got a rendering of the Gnews twin?

Link in Skyliner's post above.  Obviously never got past the concept stage.

[distortedlogic]

15 minutes ago, Exile said:

Link in Skyliner's post above.  Obviously never got past the concept stage.

Thanks, missed that one. Boy that's one high rise I'm glad didn't get built, looks hideous!

[Exile]

20 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

I've always thought it was concrete, never heard it was marble before. It looks concrete to me at any rate.

I don't know for a fact that the whitish parts are marble. But only the numerous  vertical pairs look concrete to me.

 

[distortedlogic]

19 minutes ago, Exile said:

I don't know for a fact that the whitish parts are marble. But only the numerous  vertical pairs look concrete to me.

 

You may be right, that would explain why the rest of it hasn't browned as much. I've always thought simply removing those brown pieces from in front of the windows would help it look a great deal better, not as good as a remake mind you, but better for sure, and inexpensive.

[gman430]

The white long columns on the second floor is marble I believe. 

[goodbye]

On 10/22/2018 at 11:49 AM, distortedlogic said:

I've always thought it was concrete, never heard it was marble before. It looks concrete to me at any rate.

"White marble, pre-cast window wall panels, bronze, aluminum, and tinted glass, combine to present a striking exterior to the all-electric building."
Source (1966 Advertisement)